ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`ESTTA1429865
`
`Filing date:
`
`04/21/2025
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Petition for Cancellation
`
`Notice is hereby given that the following party has filed a petition to cancel the registration indicated below.
`
`Petitioner information
`
`Name
`
`Entity
`
`Address
`
`Correspondence
`information
`
`Huaiwei Yan
`
`Individual
`
`1321 W PINE ST.
`SANTA ANA, CA 92703
`UNITED STATES
`
`Incorporated or
`registered in
`
`CHINA
`
`SIR HUAIWEI YAN PROF
`1321 W PINE ST.
`SANTA ANA, CA 92703
`UNITED STATES
`Primary email: cdyhw88@aliyun.com
`Secondary email(s): minyiwm@126.com
`7147027836
`
`Registration subject to cancellation
`
`Registration no.
`
`6333353
`
`Registration date
`
`04/27/2021
`
`Register
`
`Registrant
`
`Principal
`
`THE PANAMA PACIFIC INTERNATIONAL EXPOSITION
`1267 WILLIS ST STE 200,
`REDDING,, CA 96001
`UNITED STATES
`
`Goods/services subject to cancellation
`
`Class 033. First Use: Jul 1, 2020 First Use In Commerce: Jul 1, 2020
`All goods and services in the class are subject to cancellation, namely: Amontillado; Brandy; Wine;
`Alcoholic beverages containing fruit; Alcoholic beverages, except beer; Alcoholic cordials; Chinese
`brewed liquor (laojiou); Chinese mixed liquor (wujiapie-jiou); Chinese white liquor (baiganr); Extracts
`of spirituous liquors; Rice alcohol; Rose wines; Spirits; White wines; Prepared wine cocktails
`
`Grounds for cancellation
`
`Priority and likelihood of confusion
`
`Trademark Act Sections 14(1) and 2(d)
`
`The mark is deceptively misdescriptive
`
`Trademark Act Sections 14(1) and 2(e)(1)
`
`The mark is not inherently distinctive and has not
`acquired distinctiveness
`
`Trademark Act Sections 14(1) and 1,2 and 45;
`and Section 2(f)
`
`Deceptiveness
`
`Geographic indication which, if used on or in
`connection with wine or spirits, identifies a place
`other than the origin of the goods
`
`Trademark Act Sections 14(3) and 2(a)
`
`Trademark Act Sections 14(3) and 2(a)
`
`The registration is being used by, or with the per-
`
`Trademark Act Section 14(3)
`
`

`

`mission of, the registrant so as to misrepresent
`the source of the goods or services on or in con-
`nection with which the mark is used
`
`Other
`
`US Federal Court injuction prohibit anyone frpm
`using 4838009 and 5122689 registered
`trademayk,USPTO-97389982 comfirm that the
`text and pronunciation of 6333353 are consistent
`with 4838009 and
`5122689,threrfore,6333353infirnged upon the
`prior trademark right of 4838009 and 5122689,as
`well as the ower's-19151915PPIEI enterprise
`name right.Akso,6333353 is not an exposition,
`so it connot inhert the distincvenss unique to
`1915PPIE and is considered fraudulent.In addi-
`tion,the federal court's in juction found that
`6333353 could lead consumers to mistakenly be-
`live that it was 1915PPIEI or authorized and
`therefore frandulent.Also, the origin of 6333353's
`alcoholic beeverage is not the San Francisco ori-
`gin where 1915PPIE was held, which also consti-
`tutes fraud,etc.Please see evidences.
`
`Mark cited by petitioner as basis for cancellation
`
`U.S. registration
`no.
`
`4838009
`
`Register
`
`Principal
`
`Registration date
`
`10/20/2015
`
`Application date
`
`09/03/2014
`
`Foreign priority
`date
`
`NONE
`
`Word mark
`
`Design mark
`
`Description of
`mark
`
`Goods/services
`
`Attachments
`
`1915PANAMA PACIFIC INTERNATIONAL EXPOSITION 1915PPIE
`
`NONE
`
`Class 035. First use: First Use: Oct 1, 2010 First Use In Commerce: Jan 1, 2014
`Organizing business expositions for promoting international trade
`
`86384706#TMSN.png( bytes )
`equest for cancellation 6333353.pdf(78788 bytes )
`evidence1 97389982.pdf(242237 bytes )
`evidence3.pdf(838256 bytes )
`evidence4.pdf(414017 bytes )
`evidence5.pdf(870292 bytes )
`evidence6.pdf(898427 bytes )
`evidence7.pdf(301441 bytes )
`evidence8.pdf(147021 bytes )
`evidence9.pdf(3163631 bytes )
`evidence2.pdf(357172 bytes )
`
`Signature
`
`Name
`
`/Huaiwei Yan/
`
`/Huaiwei Yan/
`
`

`

`Date
`
`oaraTT205
`04/21/2025
`
`

`

`4838009 and 5122689 registered
`registered trademark No.6333353.
`
`Hot: 1915 PPIEI (1915 Panama Pacific Int’l Exposition Inc.) is the owner of
`request for cancellation of
`trademarks, I am CEO and owner of 1915PPIEI,
`US Federal Court injunction prohibit anyone from using 4838009 and 5122689 registered trademark, USPTO-
`97389982 confirm that the text and pronunciation of 6333353 are consistent with 4838009 and 5122689, therefore,
`6333353 infringed upon the prior trademark right of 4838009 and 5122689, as well as the ower's-19151915PPIEI
`enterprise name right. Also,6333353 is not an exposition, so it cannot inherit the distinctiveness unique to 1915PPIE
`and is considered fraudulent.In addition,the federal court's in junction found that 6333353 could lead consumers to
`mistakenly believe that
`it was 1915PPIEI or authorized and therefore fraudulent. Also, the origin of 6333353's
`alcoholic beverage is not the San Francisco origin where 1915PPIE was held, which also constitutes fraud, etc. Please
`see evidences.
`
`1915 PPIEI (1915 Panama Pacific Int’l Exposition Inc.) is the owner of 4838009 and 5122689 registered trademarks,
`request for cancellation of
`registered trademark No.6333353.
`
`I am CEO and owner of 1915PPIEI ,
`The FINAL and NONFINAL OFFICE ACTION -evidence 1 of U.S. Application - Serial No. 97389982 Mark: 1915
`PANAMA PACIFIC INTERNATIONAL EXPOSITION 1915PPIE
`said its 1915 PANAMA PACIFIC INTERNATIONAL
`EXPOSITION 1915PPIE ‘s word and sound same as the registered mark 6333353 - evidence 2 ’．because its word 19 15
`PANAMA WORLD EXPOSITION EXPO MXMXV and the words sound is as same as 97389982’s 1915 PANAMA
`PACIFIC
`
`INTERNATIONAL EXPOSITION 1915PPIE , Although 97389982 and 6333353 should be compared as a whole, as long
`as one of the words or sounds of 6333353 is the same as that of 97389982, it is enough to conclude that 97389982 is
`the same as that of 6333353, so there is no need to compare as a whole, and the application of 97389982 -please see
`Evidence1's-B is rejected on this ground.So, according to the following provisions of Lanham Act, we hereby apply for
`cancellation of registered trademark No.6333353 according to law.The specific reasons and arguments are as
`follows:About 1052. Trademarks that can be registered in the master register; Unless the trademark:Contains a
`geographical indication that, when used in or related to wine or spirits, is the same as a place name that is not the
`origin of the commodity.Argumentation, USPTO’s evidence 3 and evidence 4, It is proved twice that the 1915
`Panama
`Pacific International Exposition refers to the 1915 Panama Pacific International Exposition held in San
`Francisco in 1915. The 1915PPIE refers to the 1915 Panama Pacific International Exposition, that is, San Francisco
`is the venue of the 1915 Panama Pacific International Exposition, that is, the geographical symbol of the 1915 Panama
`Pacific International Exposition. However, the origin of the wine marked with the registered trademark 633353 is not in
`San Francisco, but in Shandong, China, Jiangsu and Zhejiang provinces, such as wine and yellow wine.(d) contains a
`trademark similar to a trademark registered in the Patent and Trademark Office, or a trademark or trade name
`previously used by others in
`the United States but not abandoned, so that it is easy to cause confusion or
`misdentification or deception when used on or related to the applicant's goods;Demonstration, evidence-5-4838009
`Good registered trademark and evidence No. 6-5122689 registered trademark, that is, others registered in 2015
`and 2017 and used the same trademark as 633353-1915 Panama Pacific International Exposition-1915 PPIE and
`Panama Pacific International Exposition -PPIE; According to 1127. Interpretation and definition; For the purpose of
`this chapter, in the interpretation of this law, "trade name" refers to any name used by a person to identify his
`enterprise, which proves that evidence -7 is a trade name founded and used by others as early as 2014. 1915
`Panama Pacific Int'l Exposition Inc., evidence-8 is a ban by the US federal court. It prohibits anyone from using
`anything in any form,
`including
`1915
`Panama Pacific International
`Exposition, 1915PPIE, Panama Pacific
`International Exposition and PPIE. Otherwise, the evidence will
`lead to public confusion and mistaken for other
`people's enterprises and their registered trademarks, or mistaken for authorized use by others. This constitutes
`cheating consumers and the public.(e) Elements constituting a trademark:(1) When it is used on or
`related to
`the
`applicant's
`goods,
`it
`is
`only
`a
`description of
`these goods or
`a deceptive
`false description;
`Demonstration, USPTO-evidence-9 identified 1915 Panama Pacific International Exposition 1915 PPIE as a descriptive
`trademark.When it is used on or related to the applicant's goods, it is mainly a geographical description of these goods,
`except that
`it can be registered as a mark of origin according to the provisions of Article 1054 of this
`Law;Argumentation, USPTO’s evidence 3 and evidence 4, It is proved twice that the 1915 Panama Pacific Int’ll
`
`

`

`Exposition refers to the 1915 Panama Pacific International Exposition held in San Francisco in 1915. The 1915PPIE
`refers to the 1915 Panama Pacific International Exposition, that is, San Francisco is the venue of the 1915 Panama
`Pacific International Exposition, that is, the geographical symbol of the 1915 Panama Pacific International Exposition.
`Evidence 5 proves that the origin of the goods marked with the registered trademark 633353 is not San Francisco, and
`thus it does not meet the requirements of Article 1054, except that it can be registered as a mark of origin.When it is
`used in or related to the applicant's goods, it is mainly a misleading description of the geographical aspects of these
`goods;The argument is the same as that in (b) and (e -(2) above, and will not be repeated here.(5) The content
`contained, as a whole, is functional. The above evidence1 proves that the words and sounds of 6333353 are the same
`as those of 97868992, that is, they are regarded as a whole. Moreover, evidence 3 and evidence 4 prove that these
`words and their sounds refer to the 1915 Panama Pacific International Exposition-1915 PPIE in San Francisco, USA,
`that is, in 1915, so 6333353 has the function of publicizing that it is the 1915 Panama Pacific International Exposition-
`1915 PPIE and its legal successor, that is, it has functionality.(f) Except those expressly excluded in paragraphs (a),
`(b), (c), (d), (e)-(3) and (e)-(5) of this article,
`if the trademark that the applicant has used in business has
`acquired distinctiveness in its goods, nothing else in this chapter can prevent
`its registration.Argumentation:
`The above argument has proved that 6333353 meets the requirements of paragraphs (a), (b), (d), (e)-(3) and (e)(5)
`at the same time, so it is not applicable to the regulation of obtaining salience to allow registration, and there is
`no evidence or enough to prove that 6333353 has obtained salience in commercial use.The director of the Patent and
`Trademark Office will accept the evidence that the applicant has substantially monopolized and continuously used
`the trademark in business for five years before the date of the request for distinctiveness as the evidence that the
`trademark has been
`prima facie established when it
`is used on or
`related to the applicant's goods.
`Argumentation, 6333353 has no evidence or enough to prove that it has been substantially monopolized in business
`for the first five years from the date of putting forward the significance requirement; There is no evidence to prove or
`enough to prove that it has used the trademark continuously in business for the first five years from the date of
`putting forward the significance requirement, that is, 6333353 has no evidence to prove that it has a significant surface,
`which does not meet the requirements of the Director of the Patent and Trademark Office that it can be registered as
`evidence of a significant surface.About 1125, it
`is forbidden to make false marks of origin, false descriptions and
`dilution.(a) Civil proceedings(1) Any false mark of
`origin, false or misleading description of facts or false or
`misleading statement of facts by any person in the service;It is argued that the above articles, especially evidence -8,
`the court's injunction confirms that anyone's use is a misleading description or a false or misleading statement of the
`facts, except for the use of registered trademarks 4838009 and 5122689 or
`their authorized use, and it
`is
`forbidden for anyone to use them.(a)
`It may cause confusion, misunderstanding or deception about the
`affiliation, association or combination between the person and others, or
`confusion, misunderstanding
`or
`deception about the fact that the service or business activity originated from, sponsored by or recognized by
`others,It is proved that the above-mentioned articles, evidence -8, are forbidden by the
`court to confirm that
`anyone's use except the use of registered trademarks 4838009 and 5122689, or their authorized use, is a misleading
`description or a false or misleading statement of the facts, and anyone is prohibited from using them.Or (b) in the
`commercial advertisement or promotion, the nature, characteristics, quality or origin of his or her or other people's
`services or commercial activities are misrepresented,It is proved that the above-mentioned articles, evidence-8,
`are confirmed by the court injunction that anyone's use is a misleading description or a false or misleading statement
`of the facts, except for the use of registered trademarks evidence 5-4838009 and evidence 6-5266789 or
`their
`authorized use, and it is forbidden for anyone to use them.To sum up, if 6333353 violates any of the above articles, it
`should cancel
`its registration, not to mention that it has violated a series of above articles at the same time, and
`specially applied for canceling the registered trademark of 6333353 according to law.
`
`

`

`To:
`
`Subject:
`
`Sent:
`
`Sent As:
`
`1915 PANAMA PACIFIC INT'L EXPOSITION INC.(cdyhw88@aliyun.com)
`U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 97389982 - 1915 PANAMA PACIFIC
`INTERNATIONAL EXPOSITION 1915PPIE
`February 03, 2023 05:47:52 PM EST
`tmng.notices@uspto.gov
`
`Attachments
`
`4984209
`6333353
`1937643
`5876397
`3133766
`3247884
`1529951
`5876704
`3708747
`5253493
`5263199
`4798890
`5876705
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
`Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
`
`U.S. Application Serial No. 97389982
`
`Mark:  1915 PANAMA PACIFIC INTERNATIONAL EXPOSITION 1915PPIE
`
`Correspondence Address:  
`1915 PANAMA PACIFIC INT'L EXPOSITION INC.
`1321 W PINE ST. SANTA ANA CA 92703
`SANTA ANA CA 92703 UNITED STATES
`
`Applicant:  1915 PANAMA PACIFIC INT'L EXPOSITION INC.
`
`Reference/Docket No. N/A
`
`Correspondence Email Address:  cdyhw88@aliyun.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NONFINAL OFFICE ACTION
`
`Response deadline.  File a response to this nonfinal Office action within three months of the “Issue
`date” below to avoid abandonment of the application. Review the Office action and respond using one
`of the links to the appropriate electronic forms in the “How to respond” section below.
`
`

`

`Request an extension.  For a fee, applicant may request one three-month extension of the response
`deadline prior to filing a response. The request must be filed within three months of the “Issue date”
`below. If the extension request is granted, the USPTO must receive applicant’s response to this letter
`within six months of the “Issue date” to avoid abandonment of the application.
`
`Issue date:  February 3, 2023
`
`The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney. Applicant
`must respond timely and completely to the issue(s) below. 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(a),
`2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.
`
`SUMMARY OF ISSUES:
`
`
`•
`•
`•
`
`Refusal Under Trademark Act Section 2(d) - Likelihood of Confusion;
`Refusal Under Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45 - Unacceptable Specimens; and
`Limited Requirement to Amend Identification of Goods
`
`
`Refusal - Likelihood of Confusion
`
`Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in
`U.S. Registration Nos. 4984209 and 6333353. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see
`TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the attached registrations.
`
`Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration of an applied-for mark that is so similar to a registered
`mark that it is likely consumers would be confused, mistaken, or deceived as to the commercial source
`of the goods of the parties. See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d). Likelihood of confusion is determined on a case-
`by-case basis by applying the factors set forth in In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357,
`1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973) (called the “du Pont factors”). In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866
`F.3d 1315, 1322, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1747 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Any evidence of record related to those
`factors need be considered; however, “not all of the DuPont factors are relevant or of similar weight in
`every case.” In re Guild Mortg. Co., 912 F.3d 1376, 1379, 129 USPQ2d 1160, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2019)
`(quoting In re Dixie Rests., Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 1406, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).
`
`In this case, the following factors are the most relevant: similarity of the marks, similarity and nature of
`the goods, and similarity of the trade channels of the goods. See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358,
`1361-62, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Dakin’s Miniatures Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593,
`1595-96 (TTAB 1999); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.
`
`A.  Comparison of Goods
`
`Applicant’s goods are identified, as follows:
`
`“Wine; Alcoholic wines; Chinese spirit of sorghum (gaolian-jiou); Distilled spirits; Distilled spirits
`made from grains from WULIANGYE; LUZHOULAOJIAO in accordance with adopted standards;
`Distilled spirits produced in MOUTAI; MAOTAI in accordance with specific standards; Grape wine;
`Yellow rice wine”, in International Class 33.
`
`Registrants' goods are identified, as follows:
`
`
`

`

`“Alcoholic beverages except beers; Rum”, in International Class 33 (U.S. Registration No. 4984209);
`and
`
`“Amontillado; Brandy; Wine; Alcoholic beverages containing fruit; Alcoholic beverages, except beer;
`Alcoholic cordials; Chinese brewed liquor (laojiou); Chinese mixed liquor (wujiapie-jiou); Chinese
`white liquor (baiganr); Extracts of spirituous liquors; Rice alcohol; Rose wines; Spirits; White wines;
`Prepared wine cocktails”, in International Class 33 (U.S. Registration No. 6333353).
`
`The parties’ goods are identical alcoholic beverages, including wines, distilled spirits and Chinese
`spirits and liquors, likely to travel through the same channels of trade to the same class of purchasers. 
`For example, the goods are likely to be sold together in retail beer, wine and liquor stores, grocery
`stores and supermarkets and advertised together in alcohol supply catalogs, directories and trade
`publications.
`
`Furthermore, with respect to the parties' goods, determining likelihood of confusion is based on the
`description of the goods stated in the application and registrations at issue, not on extrinsic evidence of
`actual use.  See In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1307, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1052 (Fed. Cir.
`2018) (citing In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1325, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1749 (Fed. Cir. 2017)).
`
`Additionally, the goods of the parties have no restrictions as to channels of trade or classes of
`purchasers and are “presumed to travel in the same channels of trade to the same class of purchasers.”
` In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Hewlett-
`Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1268, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2002));
`Made in Nature, LLC v. Pharmavite LLC, 2022 USPQ2d 557, at *49. 
`
`Further, the registrations use broad wording to describe the goods and this wording is presumed to
`encompass all goods of the type described including alcoholic beverages except beers in the nature
`of wines, alcoholic wines, Chinese spirits of sorghum (gaolian-jiou), distilled spirits, grape wines and
`yellow rice wines, which are identical to the registrants' goods.
`
`B.  Comparison of Marks
`
`Applicant’s mark 1915 PANAMA PACIFIC INTERNATIONAL EXPOSITION 1915PPIE is highly
`similar to
`the
`registered marks 1915 PANAMA WORLD EXPOSITION EXPO MXMXV
`and EXPOSICIÓN PANAMA-PACIFIC in sound, appearance and commercial impression.
`
`Regarding the registered mark 1915 PANAMA WORLD EXPOSITION EXPO MXMXV, both marks
`share the common wording "1915 PANAMA" and "EXPOSITION" and differ primarily by the
`wording "PACIFIC INTERNATIONAL" and "WORLD" in the middle of the marks.  However, this
`minor change is insufficient alone to distinguish marks.  Therefore, this minor difference does not alter
`the commercial impressions of the marks sufficiently to obviate the likelihood of confusion, as both
`marks undeniably convey the impression of a 1915 exposition relating to Panama.
`
`Similarity in sound alone may be sufficient to support a finding that the compared marks are
`confusingly similar.  In re 1st USA Realty Prof’ls, Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1581, 1586 (TTAB 2007) (citing
`Krim-Ko Corp. v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 390 F.2d 728, 732, 156 USPQ 523, 526 (C.C.P.A. 1968));
`TMEP §1207.01(b)(iv).
`
`Furthermore, although the registered mark contains design elements, when evaluating a composite
`
`

`

`mark consisting of words and designs, the word portion is accorded greater weight because it is likely
`to make a greater impression upon purchasers, be remembered by them, and be used by them to refer to
`or request the goods.  In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir.
`2012) (quoting CBS Inc. v. Morrow, 708 F.2d 1579, 1581-82, 218 USPQ 198, 200 (Fed. Cir.
`1983)); Made in Nature, LLC v. Pharmavite LLC, 2022 USPQ2d 557, at *41 (TTAB 2022)
`(quoting Sabhnani v. Mirage Brands, LLC, 2021 USPQ2d 1241, at *31 (TTAB 2021)); TMEP
`§1207.01(c)(ii).  Thus, although marks must be compared in their entireties, the word portion is
`considered the dominant feature and is accorded greater weight in determining whether marks are
`confusingly similar, even where the word portion has been disclaimed.  In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d at
`1366-67, 101 USPQ2d at 1911 (citing Giant Food, Inc. v. Nation’s Foodservice, Inc., 710 F.2d 1565,
`1570-71, 218 USPQ2d 390, 395 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). In this case, consumers will undoubtedly call for
`the goods in the marketplace in a similar manner, namely, 1915 PANAMA WORLD EXPOSITION
`and 1915 PANAMA PACIFIC INTERNATIONAL EXPOSITION alcoholic beverages except beers.
`
`As for the registered mark EXPOSICIÓN PANAMA-PACIFIC, both marks share the common wording
`"PANAMA PACIFIC" combined with the term "EXPOSITION"/"EXPOSICIÓN and clearly convey an
`impression for a Panama Pacific exposition.  Here again, similarity in sound alone may be sufficient
`to support a finding that the compared marks are confusingly similar.  In re 1st USA Realty
`Prof’ls, Inc., 84 USPQ2d at 1586 (TTAB 2007) (citing Krim-Ko Corp. v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 390
`F.2d at 732, 156 USPQ 523, 526 (C.C.P.A. 1968)); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iv).
`
`Furthermore, when comparing marks, “[t]he proper test is not a side-by-side comparison of the marks,
`but instead whether the marks are sufficiently similar in terms of their commercial impression such that
`[consumers] who encounter the marks would be likely to assume a connection between the
`parties.” Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., 901 F.3d 1367, 1373, 127 USPQ2d 1797, 1801 (Fed. Cir.
`2018) (quoting Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1368, 101 USPQ2d 1713,
`1721 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(b). The proper focus is on the recollection of the average
`purchaser, who retains a general rather than specific impression of trademarks. In re Ox Paperboard,
`LLC, 2020 USPQ2d 10878, at *4 (TTAB 2020) (citing In re Bay State Brewing Co., 117 USPQ2d
`1958, 1960 (TTAB 2016)); In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1742, 1746 (TTAB
`2018); TMEP §1207.01(b); see In re St. Helena Hosp., 774 F.3d 747, 750-51, 113 USPQ2d 1082, 1085
`(Fed. Cir. 2014).  In this case, consumers will undoubtedly retain a similar recollection of the marks,
`namely, 1915 PANAMA PACIFIC INTERNATIONAL EXPOSITION and EXPOSICIÓN PANAMA-
`PACIFIC alcoholic beverages except beers.
`What's more, where the goods of an applicant and registrant are “similar in kind and/or closely related,”
`the degree of similarity between the marks required to support a finding of likelihood of confusion is
`not as great as in the case of diverse goods.  In re J.M. Originals Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1393, 1394 (TTAB
`1987); see Shen Mfg. Co. v. Ritz Hotel Ltd., 393 F.3d 1238, 1242, 73 USPQ2d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir.
`2004); TMEP §1207.01(b).
`
`Finally, the overriding concern is not only to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods , but
`to protect the registrants from adverse commercial impact due to use of a similar mark by a newcomer.
`See In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1208, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1690 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore, any
`doubt regarding a likelihood of confusion determination is resolved in favor of the registrants. TMEP
`§1207.01(d)(i); see Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1265, 62 USPQ2d
`1001, 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2002); In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 464-65, 6 USPQ2d 1025,
`1026 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
`
`Based on the foregoing remarks, because confusion as to source is likely, registration is refused under
`
`

`

`Trademark Act Section 2(d) based on a likelihood of confusion.
`
`Applicant should also note the following refusal.
`
`Refusal - Unacceptable Specimens
`
`Registration is also refused because the specimens do not show the applied-for mark as actually used in
`commerce in connection with any of the goods specified in International Class 33.  Trademark Act
`Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); In re Keep A Breast
`Found., 123 USPQ2d 1869, 1876-79 (TTAB 2017); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a), 1301.04(d), (g)(i).  An
`application based on Trademark Act Section 1(a) must include a specimen showing the applied-for
`mark as actually used in commerce for each international class of goods identified in the application. 
`15 U.S.C. §1051(a)(1); 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a); see In re Gulf
`Coast Nutritionals, Inc., 106 USPQ2d 1243, 1247 (TTAB 2013). 
` 
`Specifically, the specimens of record only show (1) a slight variation of the applied-for mark on a
`registration certificate issued by this Office under U.S. Registration No. 4838009 for unrelated business
`services, (2) variations of the applied-for mark on certificates written in Chinese, (3) a variation of the
`proposed mark on a business card promoting beverage award services, (4) variations of the applied-for
`mark on bank/credit cards, (4) variations of the proposed mark on "Power of Attorney" documents, (5)
`variations of the applied-for mark on a cease and desist letter and (6) variations of the proposed mark
`on an invitation to an event in "Guiyang" rather than showing the proposed mark applied to the
`identified "Wine; Alcoholic wines; Chinese spirit of sorghum (gaolian-jiou); Distilled spirits; Distilled
`spirits made from grains from WULIANGYE; LUZHOULAOJIAO in accordance with adopted
`standards; Distilled spirits produced in MOUTAI; MAOTAI in accordance with specific standards;
`Grape wine; Yellow rice wine”.  Therefore, consumers will not perceive the applied-for mark as an
`indication of source for these goods.
`
`Examples of specimens.  Specimens for goods include a photograph of (1) the actual goods bearing
`the mark; (2) an actual container, packaging, tag or label for the goods bearing the mark; or (3) a point-
`of-sale display showing the mark directly associated with the goods.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.56(b)(1), (c);
`TMEP §904.03(a)-(m).  A webpage specimen submitted as a display associated with the goods must
`show the mark in association with a picture or textual description of the goods and include information
`necessary for ordering the goods.  TMEP §904.03(i); see 37 C.F.R. §2.56(b)(1), (c). 
`
`Any webpage printout or screenshot submitted as a specimen must include the webpage’s URL and the
`date it was accessed or printed on the specimen itself, within the TEAS form that submits the specimen,
`or in a verified statement under 37 C.F.R. §2.20 or 28 U.S.C. §1746 in a later-filed response.  See 37
`C.F.R. §2.56(c); TMEP §§904.03(i), 1301.04(a).
`
`Response options.  Applicant may respond to this refusal by satisfying one of the following for each
`applicable international class:
`
`
`(1)  Submit a different specimen (a verified “substitute” specimen) that (a) was in actual
`use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application and (b) shows the
`mark in actual use in commerce for the goods identified in the application.  A “verified
`substitute specimen” is a specimen that is accompanied by the following statement made in
`a signed affidavit or supported by a declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20:  “The substitute (or
`new, or originally submitted, if appropriate) specimen(s) was/were in use in commerce at
`
`

`

`least as early as the filing date of the application.”  The substitute specimen cannot be
`accepted without this statement.
`
`
`
`(2)  Amend the filing basis to intent to use under Section 1(b) (which includes withdrawing
`an amendment to allege use, if one was filed), as no specimen is required before
`publication.  This option will later necessitate additional fee(s) and filing requirements,
`including a specimen.
`
`
`For an overview of the response options referenced above and instructions on how to satisfy these
`options using the online Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, see the Specimen
`webpage
`
`Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusals by
`submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.
`
`If applicant responds to the refusals, applicant must also respond to the requirement set forth below.
`
`Identification of Goods
`
`The following requirement only applies to the identified "distilled spirits made from grains from
`WULIANGYE; LUZHOULAOJIAO in accordance with adopted standards" and "distilled spirits
`produced in MOUTAI; MAOTAI in accordance with specific standards".
`
`The words “Wuliangye”, “Luzhoulaojiao”, “Moutai” and “Maotai” in the identification of goods
`are registered marks not owned by applicant; accordingly, applicant must amend the identification to
`delete these words and, if not already included in the identification, provide the common commercial or
`generic name of the goods. TMEP §1402.09; see 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); Camloc Fastener Corp. v.
`Grant, 119 USPQ 264, 264 n.1 (TTAB 1958). See the attached third-party registrations.
`
`Identifications of goods should generally be comprised of generic everyday wording for the goods, and
`exclude proprietary or potentially-proprietary wording, such as a registered term. See TMEP
`§§1402.01, 1402.09. The misspelling or phonetic equivalent of a registered mark should similarly be
`excluded, unless it is the common name of the goods. TMEP §1402.09. A registered mark indicates
`origin in one particular party and so may not be used to identify goods that originate in a party other
`than that registrant. TMEP §1402.09 (citing Camloc Fastener Corp. v. Grant, 119 USPQ at 264 n.1).
`
`The applicant may adopt any or all of the following descriptions, if accurate:  
`
`“Wine; Alcoholic wines; Chinese spirit of sorghum (gaolian-jiou); Distilled spirits; Grape wine; Yellow
`rice wine”, in International Class 33.
`
`TMEP §1402.11.
`
`For assistance with identifying and classifying goods in trademark applications, please see the online
`searchable Manual
`Services
`at
`of
`Acceptable
`Identifications
`of Goods
`and
`http://tess2.uspto.gov/netahtml/tidm.html.  See TMEP §1402.04.
`
`An applicant may only amend an identification to clarify or limit the goods, but not to add to or
`broaden the scope of the goods.  37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); see TMEP §§1402.06 et seq., 1402.07.
`
`

`

`Furthermore, any goods deleted by amendment may not be reinserted at a later point in prosecution. 
`TMEP §1402.01(e).
`
`Response Guidelines
`
`For this application to proceed, applicant must explicitly address each refusal and/or requirement in this
`Office action. For a refusal, applicant may provide written arguments and evidence against the refusal,
`and may have other response options if specified above. For a requirement, applicant should set forth
`the changes or statements. Please see “Responding to Office Actions” and the informational video
`“